Lebanon’s Tammam Salam Recalls Premiership Difficulties: Aoun’s Party Acted Like Political Militia

A Lebanese cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Tammam Salam in 2015. (Photo: Dalati & Nohra)
A Lebanese cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Tammam Salam in 2015. (Photo: Dalati & Nohra)
TT
20

Lebanon’s Tammam Salam Recalls Premiership Difficulties: Aoun’s Party Acted Like Political Militia

A Lebanese cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Tammam Salam in 2015. (Photo: Dalati & Nohra)
A Lebanese cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Tammam Salam in 2015. (Photo: Dalati & Nohra)

A new book by Journalist Abdul-Sattar Ellaz, to be published soon by Dar Riyad Al-Rayes for Books and Publishing, recounts the details of the difficult period during which Tammam Salam assumed the premiership of the Lebanese government - the last under the tenure of President Michel Suleiman and which continued during the presidential vacuum that lasted two and a half years before the election of President Michel Aoun.

The book narrates the main obstacles that Salam faced during his tenure, during which he spent more than ten months seeking to form a government of “national interest,” and two years and ten months leading a government that assumed the responsibilities of the presidency with the failure to elect a new president.

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes excerpts from one of the book’s chapters entitled, “When We Make Our Brothers Enemies”, which touched on the difficulties that Salam’s government faced in the relations with Arab countries, due to Hezbollah’s role and its interference in the internal affairs of Gulf states, in addition to the positions of then-Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, which were biased towards Iran.

Salam talks to journalist Ellaz about the difficulties he faced due to these interventions, and the negative role played by Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement.

He says: “I am from a school that considers politics to be a noble act that has its moral obligations, such as integrity, transparency, and clean hands that must precede other requirements related to knowledge, experience, and administrative competence. I believe that the maneuvers, alliances, and deceptions that political action may involve must stop when they reach the level of harming the higher national interest.”

He continues: “Despite my knowledge of the corridors of Lebanese politics, which I accumulated over the years of experience in public work, I was shocked by the performance of these forces that surpassed all national ceilings and proscriptions for the sake of partisan interests.”

Asked by the journalist about more details, Salam says: “The Aounists in particular crossed all boundaries and used all means to reach their political goal that is General Michel Aoun assuming the presidency; even if this led to obstructing the state affairs at the expense of the citizens’ interests.”

The former premier went on to say: “They acted like a political militia, blocking the government’s path whenever they wanted, and freezing its work on various pretexts ... They hijacked the parliament and paralyzed its work…. In their battle, they used a rhetoric of sedition and all means of sectarian incitement.”

Salam stresses that had it not been for Hezbollah’s support to Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), the latter would not have been able to persist in the policy of obstruction.

“Of course, Hezbollah is also responsible… Here, I am not talking about his ministers, who were of tact and good performance, but about the general policy that the party followed with its ally in order to bring Michel Aoun to the presidency and the costs incurred by the country,” the former premier recounts.

He adds: “We must not forget that among these costs is the rupture in relations with the Arab world, which was caused by the party’s stances on Gulf states and the unilateral positions adopted by Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil in Arab forums.”

Ellaz writes that when Salam formed his government in February 2014, no one believed that its members - who come from different factions that have been in rivalry for years - would be a team with a unified vision, working in perfect harmony to get the country out of its problems.

According to the writer, the state of isolation that Lebanon has reached was undoubtedly the result of the policies that a local political group – Hezbollah - has pursued over the years along with its interference in the internal affairs of Gulf states.

He says that Salam tried many times to defuse the tensions that resulted from this provocative policy towards the Arabs. He faced many difficulties, but always “bet on the love of the Gulf brothers for our country, and on the warmth of their feelings towards us.”

Hezbollah was not the only party that angered the Gulf. Then-Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil declared, in some Arab forums, positions that did not satisfy them.

The Crisis with Bahrain and The UAE

At a meeting held in Cairo on January 16, 2015, the Arab foreign ministers adopted a declaration submitted by Bahrain, which considered Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s statements as “clear incitement to violence and terrorism with the aim of destabilizing security and stability in the Kingdom of Bahrain and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.”

The foreign ministers called on the Lebanese government to “take the necessary and deterrent measures to ensure that such hateful statements are not repeated.”

Ellaz says that Lebanon was embarrassed at the meeting. Bassil announced his objection to the declaration, stressing at the same time that the official Lebanese position was not to interfere in the internal affairs of Arab countries.

The foreign minister added: “If we were given a choice between Lebanese national unity and Lebanon’s Arab relations that we are keen on and adhere to, we would definitely choose the first and not neglect the second.”

This did not please Gulf states, but rather increased their resentment.

Bahrain’s Foreign Minister, Khalid bin Muhammad Al Khalifa, said that the Lebanese delegation at the meeting “preferred to adhere to false national unity over Arab solidarity that saved it from war,” adding that Lebanon “is a great country ruled by honorable men and sheikhs such as Beshara El Khoury, Camille Chamoun, Saeb Salam and Rafik Hariri. But today, it is unfortunately controlled by a terrorist agent.”

Ellaz recounts that the Prime Minister feared that this crisis would lead to negative measures against Lebanese nationals in some Gulf countries. So he rushed to issue a balanced statement, in which he stressed that Lebanon’s official position on Arab and international issues is expressed by the government “and not by any single political party,” even if it was present in the coalition government.

The Kingdom of Bahrain did not take any action against the Lebanese, despite the discontent with Nasrallah’s words. Indeed, its foreign minister told Salam, whom he met on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in early February, that the Lebanese in Bahrain “live in their country and among their families, and nothing will harm them.”

The problem with Bahrain was resolved, but it exploded elsewhere, specifically in the United Arab Emirates. Information has begun to circulate about the intention of the Abu Dhabi authorities to deport a number of Lebanese nationals.

Salam seized the opportunity of his presence and the UAE Foreign Minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, in Munich to talk to him about this issue, and the outcome of the meeting was harsh for Lebanon.

Ellaz recounts that Sheikh Abdullah was very polite, but at the same time spoke in a decisive tone that reflected the amount of anger among the Gulf leaders at Hezbollah’s repeated verbal aggression against their countries and interference in their affairs.

When Salam asked him about an intention to deport Lebanese, he did not deny the plan, adding that the UAE authorities would not tolerate any resident who could pose a threat to national security.

Distancing Lebanon from its Arab Identity

It didn't take long for the “huge blast.” This time the crisis was provoked by Bassil when he instructed Lebanon’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Abdel Sattar Issa, to abstain from voting on a resolution at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation conference in Jeddah, denouncing Iran for the attacks on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and its consulate in Mashhad.

This Lebanese position angered Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and provoked many local reactions that considered Lebanon to be distancing itself from its Arab identity and falling into the arms of Iran and its expansionist policy in the region.

As usual, the Prime Minister, who was participating in the Davos Economic Forum, rushed to prevent an escalation, and issued a statement, saying: “Saudi Arabia is right in its positions, and has a leading role in the Arab world to promote stability and improve regional conditions; while Iran has been interfering in the Arab world for many years and this is the origin of the conflict between them and the Kingdom.”



From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a New Era of Escalation

The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)
The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)
TT
20

From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a New Era of Escalation

The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)
The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)

By Peter Apps

As India’s defense chief attended an international security conference in Singapore in May, soon after India and Pakistan fought what many in South Asia now dub “the four-day war”, he had a simple message: Both sides expect to do it all again.

It was a stark and perhaps counterintuitive conclusion: the four-day military exchange, primarily through missiles and drones, appears to have been among the most serious in history between nuclear-armed nations.

Indeed, reports from both sides suggest it took a direct intervention from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt an escalating exchange of drones and rockets.

Speaking to a Reuters colleague in Singapore, however, Indian Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan denied either nation had come close to the “nuclear threshold”, describing a “lot of messaging” from both sides.

“A new space for conventional operations has been created and I think that is the new norm,” he said, vowing that New Delhi would continue to respond militarily to any militant attacks on India suspected to have originated from Pakistan.

How stable that "space" might be and how great the risk of escalation for now remains unclear. However, there have been several dramatic examples of escalation in several already volatile global stand-offs over the past two months.

As well as the “four-day” war between India and Pakistan last month, recent weeks have witnessed what is now referred to in Israel and Iran as their “12-day war”. It ended this week with a US-brokered ceasefire after Washington joined the fray with massive air strikes on Tehran’s underground nuclear sites.

Despite years of confrontation, Israel and Iran had not struck each other’s territory directly until last year, while successive US administrations have held back from similar steps.

As events in Ukraine have shown, conflict between major nations can become normalized at speed – whether that means “just” an exchange of drones and missiles, or a more existential battle.

More concerning still, such conflicts appear to have become more serious throughout the current decade, with plenty of room for further escalation.

This month, that included an audacious set of Ukrainian-organized drone strikes on long-range bomber bases deep inside Russian territory, destroying multiple aircraft which, as well as striking Ukraine, have also been responsible for carrying the Kremlin’s nuclear deterrent.

All of that is a far cry from the original Cold War, in which it was often assumed that any serious military clash – particularly involving nuclear forces or the nations that possessed them – might rapidly escalate beyond the point of no return. But it does bring with it new risks of escalation.

Simmering in the background, meanwhile, is the largest and most dangerous confrontation of them all - that between the US and China, with US officials saying Beijing has instructed its military to be prepared to move against Taiwan from 2027, potentially sparking a hugely wider conflict.

As US President Donald Trump headed to Europe this week for the annual NATO summit, just after bombing Iran, it was clear his administration hopes such a potent show of force might be enough to deter Beijing in particular from pushing its luck.

“American deterrence is back,” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon press briefing the morning after the air strikes took place.

Iran’s initial response of drones and missiles fired at a US air base in Qatar – with forewarning to the US that the fusillade was coming – appeared deliberately moderate to avoid further escalation.

Addressing senators at their confirmation hearing on Tuesday, America’s next top commanders in Europe and the Middle East were unanimous in their comments that the US strikes against Iran would strengthen Washington's hand when it came to handling Moscow and Beijing.

Chinese media commentary was more mixed. Han Peng, head of state-run China Media Group's North American operations, said the US had shown weakness to the world by not wanting to get dragged into the Iran conflict due to its “strategic contraction”.

Other social media posts talked of how vulnerable Iran looked, with nationalist commentator Hu Xijn warning: "If one day we have to get involved in a war, we must be the best at it."

LONG ARM OF AMERICA

On that front, the spectacle of multiple US B-2 bombers battering Iran’s deepest-buried nuclear bunkers - having flown all the way from the US mainland apparently undetected - will not have gone unnoticed in Moscow or Beijing.

Nor will Trump’s not so subtle implications that unless Iran backed down, similar weapons might be used to kill its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or other senior figures, wherever they might hide.

None of America’s adversaries have the ability to strike without warning in that way against hardened, deepened targets, and the B-2 – now being replaced by the more advanced B-21 – has no foreign equal.

Both are designed to penetrate highly sophisticated air defenses, although how well they would perform against cutting-edge Russian or Chinese systems would only be revealed in an actual conflict.

China’s effort at building something similar, the H-2, has been trailed in Chinese media for years – and US officials say Beijing is striving hard to make it work.

Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighters with some stealth abilities, but none have the range or carrying capacity to target the deepest Western leadership or weapons bunkers with conventional munitions.

As a result, any Chinese or Russian long-range strikes – whether conventional or nuclear – would have to be launched with missiles that could be detected in advance.

Even without launching such weapons, however, nuclear powers have their own tools to deliver threats.

An analysis of the India-Pakistan “four-day war” in May done by the Stimson Center suggested that as Indian strikes became more serious on the third day of the war, Pakistan might have taken similar, deliberately visible steps to ready its nuclear arsenal to grab US attention and help conclude the conflict.

Indian newspapers have reported that a desperate Pakistan did indeed put pressure on the US to encourage India to stop, as damage to its forces was becoming increasingly serious, and threatening the government.

Pakistan denies that – but one of its most senior officers was keen to stress that any repeat of India’s strikes would bring atomic risk.

"Nothing happened this time," said the chairman of the Pakistani joint chiefs, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, also speaking to Reuters at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore. "But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time."

For now, both sides have pulled back troops from the border – while India appears determined to use longer term strategies to undermine its neighbor, including withdrawing from a treaty controlling the water supplies of the Indus River, which Indian Prime Minister Modi said he now intends to dam. Pakistani officials have warned that could be another act of war.

DRONES AND DETERRENCE

Making sure Iran never obtains the leverage of a working atomic bomb, of course, was a key point of the US and Israeli air strikes. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed that the dangers of a government so hostile to Israel obtaining such a weapon would always be intolerable.

For years, government and private sector analysts had predicted Iran might respond to an assault on its nuclear facilities with attacks by its proxies across the Middle East, including on Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, as well as using thousands of missiles, drones and attack craft to block international oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.

In reality, the threat of an overwhelming US military response – and hints of an accompanying switch of US policy to outright regime change or decapitation in Iran, coupled with the Israeli military success against Hezbollah and Hamas, appear to have forced Tehran to largely stand down.

What that means longer term is another question.

Flying to the Netherlands on Tuesday for the NATO summit, Trump appeared to be offering Iran under its current Shi'ite Muslim clerical rulers a future as a “major trading nation” providing they abandoned their atomic program.

The Trump administration is also talking up the success of its Operation ROUGH RIDER against the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen.

Vice Admiral Bradley Cooper, selected as the new head of US Central Command, told senators the US military had bombed the Houthis for 50 days before a deal was struck in which the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US and other international shipping in the Red Sea.

But Cooper also noted that like other militant groups in the Middle East, the Houthis were becoming increasingly successful in building underground bases out of the reach of smaller US weapons, as well as using unmanned systems to sometimes overwhelm their enemies.

“The nature and character of warfare is changing before our very eyes,” he said.

Behind the scenes and sometimes in public, US and allied officials say they are still assessing the implications of the success of Ukraine and Israel in infiltrating large numbers of short-range drones into Russia and Iran respectively for two spectacular attacks in recent weeks.

According to Ukrainian officials, the drones were smuggled into Russia hidden inside prefabricated buildings on the back of trucks, with the Russian drivers unaware of what they were carrying until the drones were launched.

Israel’s use of drones on the first day of its campaign against Iran is even more unsettling for Western nations wondering what such an attack might look like.

Its drones were smuggled into Iran and in some cases assembled in secret there to strike multiple senior Iranian leaders and officials in their homes as they slept in the small hours of the morning on the first day of the campaign.

As they met in The Hague this week for their annual summit, NATO officials and commanders will have considered what they must do to build their own defenses to ensure they do not prove vulnerable to a similar attack.

Judging by reports in the Chinese press, military officials there are now working on the same.